Limitations of this Study and Directions for Future Research 181

The delimitations of this research were noted and justified in Section 1.6. Limitations in a multiple- case research methodology and steps taken to address these limitations were discussed in Section 3.7. Given this research utilized a multiple-case case research design and case study research methodology, future research into the experience and role of DMOs in crisis may seek to use alternative exploratory methodologies (e.g. observation), or test the conceptual models developed with alternative quantitative and qualitative methodologies in general. Further, the context of this research is limited to the data gathered from nine U.S. DMOs and four crisis management plans. Due to the smaller self-selected sample used in this study, the research design was unable to control for certain variables such as DMO type, size, structure and even seniority or position of interviewees, thus limiting the comparative examination of DMO responses in terms of, for example, organizational structure and funding and/or by interviewee role. Future empirical research into the crisis experiences and crisis plans of other U.S. local DMOs, other countries’ local DMOs, as well as DMOs at the state and national levels will extend the scope of this research.

An additional limitation concerning the U.S. DMO context of this research is that it focuses on the crisis experience and perceptions of only the DMO in a crisis environment. Future, to add depth and breadth to our understanding of DMOs’ roles in crisis management specifically, and TCM in general, research needs to investigate the experiences and perceptions of non-DMO organizations,

beginning with those identified as key stakeholder groups in this study. Additionally, this research focused on TCM and specific underlying management fields, organizational behavior, stakeholder management, and knowledge management and learning from an organizational versus individual perspective. This means, that although interviews were conducted with DMO personnel, individual responses were analyzed more as representative of the DMO as a whole entity and less as individual personal perspectives. However, given the reality that human beings develop and carryout TCM, based on at a minimum, their own personal experiences, background, knowledge and skill set, future studies may choose to concentrate on individual experiences and capacities as drivers of TCM. For example, this research conceptualized DMO stakeholders as ‘family’, elaborating further certain stakeholders’ ‘parenting’ style and relational dynamics in terms of trust, loyalty and reciprocity. Scholars may extend the application of this conceptualization to ascertain if and how individual employees of those stakeholder groups reinforce or diverge from the relational categories in which their organization is placed. Moreover, this study was conducted on the premise each DMO’s current active business state gave credence to the success of its TCM strategy, however, organizational culture in terms of empowerment, collaboration, trust, leadership and modes of learning within the context of TCM were not explored.

Future empirical researchers could begin this investigation by exploring the applicability of path- goal theory and leadership effectiveness (House, 1971, 1996), to discern what contingency factors influence DMOs’ crisis leadership, and if any one leadership style can be linked more strongly to success in one specific type of crisis versus another. For example, study into individuals such as NOLA CVB’s President and CEO who received a World Travel Market Globe Award for his “instrumental role in restoring the city as a tourism destination following Hurricane Katrina, and his tireless work to return New Orleans to its position as premiere destination through planned events, safe guarding and creating thousands of travel and tourism jobs in the process” would help scholars discern the extent to which certain individual leadership qualities influence the success of TCM.

In this same train of thought, research that seeks to uncover the differences in organizational culture among DMOs through, for example, Fyall’s (2011) ‘15 Cs’ framework to destination marketing/management might also prove useful in illustrating how individual employees contribute and mold tourism organizations’ crisis responses. Tourism scholars may seek to examine the barriers or facilitators of stakeholder collaboration or stakeholder engagement in TCM, including perhaps DMOs’ capacity to recognize and engage ‘fringe’ (Hart & Sharna, 2004) or ‘neglected’ stakeholder groups (Hardy et al., 2013). Further, the concept of DMOs in a stakeholder family environment needs to be evaluated and empirically informed in terms of, for example, the trust, resources, loyalty and attitude DMOs actually have with key stakeholder groups before and after

crisis events. Additionally, although there are a rising number of studies focusing on knowledge management in TC, scholars have to explore the codification versus personalization strategies for knowledge creation, storage and dissemination resulting from DMOs’ TCM. For example, there is a need for research on how do employees’ individual information processing capacities affect the speed, quality and format of the information being disseminated? Broadly speaking, this research has highlighted key areas of DMOs’ approaches to managing crises that would greatly benefit from more focused inquiry in the tourism science and management disciplines.

It is also important to note that although the interviewees participating in this study were either first-hand witnesses to DMOs’ crisis experiences or attested to having access to adequate information and knowledge of the crisis event, discourse from seven of the nine DMOs was provided by one DMO employee, implying the data captured may be slanted or biased toward one individual’s recollection and perception of those events. This limitation is acknowledged, particularly in respect to the two case studies (Tucson CVB and GSOBT) where the researcher was able to interview two and six DMO employees respectively, and where both corroborating and conflicting accounts were noted and clarified. Future empirical studies may increase the depth and coverage of this research area by securing access to more or all employees in one DMO or organization. Additionally, while gaining access to real-time crisis observations may be tricky, particularly during the prodromal to intermediate stages, certain crisis types such as political or perhaps economic may lend well to action research. For example, action research conducted on long-term political crises, such as those currently experienced by IDT (rejected merger) and Tucson CVB’s SB 1070 could provide additional knowledge to TCM development and decision-making, especially with respect to the roles of DMOs as whole, individual employees and other tourism and crisis stakeholders.

Another limitation of the research was its exploration of DMOs’ crisis experiences solely in the context of natural/physical or manmade disasters, and political, malevolence and megadamage crises. Future studies looking to test the conceptual models resulting from this research would be wise to consider expanding the scope of their work to include other types of crisis, such as those falling under the economic, organizational misdeeds, stakeholder challenges or rumor categories.